After three days in which he has been at the centre of a vicious feud between the Daily Mail and the BBC, the newscaster Peter Sissons has spoken publicly for the first time to denounce the "lurid and malicious" criticism of his coverage of the Queen Mother's death.

Accused of disrespect for wearing a burgundy tie to deliver the news of the death, trashed for being "stumbling, inept and insensitive", and criticised yesterday by his former ITN colleague Michael Brunson, Sissons decided to speak out against what he sees as a malicious agenda being run against his employer.

The Mail has focused on a live interview he conducted with the Hon Margaret Rhodes, the Queen Mother's niece, who was at her bedside when she died. The fact that she had been present at her aunt's death only became apparent during the interview with Sissons. "It must have been a very private moment," he said, to which she replied: "Yes, it was a very moving and a very sad moment".

He followed up with two questions, that have angered the Mail. He asked: "And, without wishing to intrude too much, who was there?" to which Mrs Rhodes replied. "No, I won't go into that. It was just a few members of the family." He then asked: "After you all came out, what happened?" Mrs Rhodes replied: "No, sorry, I really don't want to go into those details."

The Mail has accused Sissons of insensitivity and a lack of respect. Yesterday its columnist Stephen Glover said he "showed very little human feeling" towards Mrs Rhodes, asking her "idiotic questions". Sissons had earlier resolved not to respond publicly until after the Queen Mother's funeral, but his patience ran out yesterday.

Speaking exclusively to MediaGuardian.co.uk, Sissons said: "I have nothing on my conscience about that interview. No fair and reasonable viewer would have found anything disrespectful or insensitive. The Daily's Mail's account was just a travesty of what occurred. The lurid language used is just malicious."

His comments came after three days of attack from sections of the press, notably the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail. The two newspapers have conducted a sustained campaign against the BBC, particularly since the appointment of Greg Dyke as director general and Gavyn Davies as chairman of the board of governors, both of whom were previously supporters of Labour.

It is widely accepted that the anti-BBC tirade is being directed by the Mail's Tory-supporting editor, Paul Dacre, whose brother Nigel, coincidentally, is in charge of ITV News at ITN. The Mail revealed its motivation in yesterday's leader column: "Today we have a BBC shot through with New Labour republicanism."

The wolves have been waiting to pounce since the BBC1 controller Lorraine Heggessey revealed last autumn that plans to cover the Queen Mother's death had been revised in line with a less deferential public mood.

That angered royal aides, who were all too happy to jump on the Mail's bandwagon, mischievously encouraging journalists to write that Prince Charles had snubbed the BBC by choosing an ITN crew to film the eulogy to his grandmother. The BBC's problem was summed up by one royal aide, who said: "The Mail clearly hates the BBC, but the BBC does rather play into its hands."

Another difficulty is that the BBC has been caught on the hop. The Mail on Sunday first weighed in the day after the Queen Mother's death, but it took until yesterday for a senior BBC executive to mount a public defence. Mr Dyke, who is on holiday, is usually reluctant to mount a "running commentary" every time the BBC is criticised, but does not have a high-profile deputy who could act as the BBC's public face.

The former chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, tended to act as a foil to Mr Dyke's predecessor John Birt, but Mr Davies, is tainted by his "middle classes" gaffe last month.

So it fell to Mark Damazer, the intellectual deputy director of BBC News, to mount a defence on Radio 4's Today programme. He told presenter Edward Stourton that the Sissons broadcast "rose to the occasion", and described the BBC's programming as excellent. "I feel absolutely proud of the coverage and support the extraordinarily professional contribution from all the people involved."

But far from quelling the storm, it is likely that the Mail will find plenty of ammunition in the interview: not least the fact that Stourton and Damazer are old friends from Cambridge University, and started as graduate trainees at ITN on the same day. Damazer was responsible for bringing Stourton to the BBC.

There are many at the BBC who find the Mail's hypocrisy breathtaking. On the same programme, Stourton pointed out to the Mail columnist Quentin Letts that his paper had published intimate details of the Queen Mother's last moments. "It makes it sound as though you are quite comfortable in the gutter, you just don't want us joining you there," Stourton said.

Letts replied: "I think there's a great difference between a newspaper which people have the right to buy or not to buy and the state broadcaster we all have to pay a licence fee for."

The tie row has, inevitably, detracted from a more legitimate issue: the editorial quality of the BBC's coverage. BBC executives firmly believe it was exemplary, but a number of staff felt the crucial first few hours, led by the BBC1 weekend news team rather than BBC News 24, let the side down. While Mary Nightingale breezed through almost two hours of tributes on ITV1, a channel that is not used to 24-hour news, some felt the BBC coverage lacked sure-footedness.

As with princesses Diana and Margaret previously, the Queen Mother's death happened on a weekend - on the watch of producers lacking experience, many of whom had not had years of royal rehearsals under their belt. While Sissons will not hear a word said against his team, it is inexplicable that Mrs Rhodes was not debriefed before she spoke to him live on air.

Sissons believes the "tie" issue is irrelevant. He was following BBC guidance that called for "sombre" clothing, but others in the organisation are aghast that executives did not predict the storm of protest.